ShaneP wrote:Hmmm…intriguing thoughts. Could you elaborate more on what you mean by "a very Dng/Framestore/MPC feel"? Is it the rendering or look of them? The number of dinos? Just curious. As Tyler mentioned above about the internet generally being absolutist and in their own CG-Practical camps, this idea of yours about a London style very curious.
Let's call it Soho style. 
Not to speak for ninja turtle, but I
kind of agree with what I
think he's trying to say. Mostly. Or, at least, I used to. I'll probably butcher trying to articulate my reasoning, so bear with me.
There was a time when I held certain opinions about certain VFX houses and their style. I admit that it was extremely superficial and sometimes straight-up wrong.
ILM/Digital Domain: Off-the-chart photorealism and compositing. Basically the cream of the crop of vendors.
Weta: Amazing animation and design work, less-than-stellar compositing and mostly amazing photorealism.
SPI: Great animation, subpar photorealism, and Stretch-Armstrong digital doubles.
DNeg/Framestore/MPC: Really solid work all around, but still not quite on the level of a company like ILM. Everything they did was, like, an A instead of an A+. It had a certain look to it that you could just tell that it wasn't ILM or DD or Weta. It had that "London look" to it. I can't explain it, but I developed that reasoning after watching many, many showreels of those companies' work.
Everyone Else (Rising Sun, Method, Hydraulx, etc.): Hit and miss.
However, that opinion has since changed. The past few years have shown the DNegs/Framestore/MPC's of the VFX world to be knocking them out of the park, as evident by their many, many Oscar noms and wins lately. I honestly believe that the "Sohos" of the VFX world are now on par with ILM, with their work being so photoreal.
Plus, I think what plays into the appearance of the VFX is the overall visual style of the film. How the director, production designer, DP and VFX Supe work together to create shots and the look has a huge bearing on how the VFX turn out. How's the shot look? Colour, framing, composition, duration? The Spielberg/Johnston JP flicks had a certain look to them, based both on the time period and their directors. But with Trevorrow and Bayona, they similarly have a style and a time period that they're working with, and in turn, their VFX are affected by it (positively or negatively).
Like, whether or not I'd actually say that the
JW:FK trailer work is the "Soho style", I'm not sure, but I would definitely categorize it as "not sure if ILM". Basically, the
JW and
JW:FK work made me stop and think "Is this actually ILM?", because it seems to lack that little bit of panache that separates ILM work from the rest. If you could magically erase any knowledge I have of ILM's involvement in those two movies, you could tell me that both of those movies were handled by anyone other than ILM and I'd probably believe it.
Just my thoughts, and I'm rambling at this point.
Am I just being a grumpy old man? 
Like, the close-up of the foot stepping down with the toe-claw tapping doesn't even look like it belongs in the franchise, if you catch my drift.